Savage banned from UK for.........

[Formaldehyde]

Can I check something?

Do you have a problem with the US not just refusing entry but threatening criminal charges against foreign businessmen who do business with Cuba, thus denying the right of those individuals to liberty (which IMHO is even more funsdamental than the right to free speech) despite them having done nothing whatsoever illegal?

First, I think the US trade embargoes against Cuba are ludicrous. Hopefully, all that will soon change. See a recent thread on that topic for further details.

Second, I do not think these businessmen should be denied entry. As you pointed out, what they are doing is not illegal in their own countries. It would be similar to the US trying to deny entry to any Canadian who ever vacationed there, or denying entry to anybody who has ever smoked pot in Amsterdam for that matter.

 

[ComradeDavo]

We effectively did until 9/11 - at least for visitors from most countries. Hopefully, that will again change once people stop being so paranoid about others' terrorism.

So the USA was letting anyone into it before 9/11, including Nazi's, Cubans, Soviet citizens and Libyan terrorists was it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Let's see.

Nazis for sure since we actively supported every ultra-right-wing regime in the world to help "combat Communism". They would have felt right at home with the German Nazis who built our missile and space program.

And certanly any Cuban who who could swim or boat across, and who could actually touch land before being touched by an authority figure is still given free entry. They don't even need a passport - just the name of a relative or acquaintance in this country who could 'vouch' for them.

However, both Soviets and Libyans did indeed need valid passports and visas, but neither were all that terribly difficult to acquire. Wanting to go to Disney World and having the money for a return ticket would probably get you right in.

 

[Mise]

Man you're naive... And wrong.

Anyway, Mike Savage is allowed to say whatever he wants. The British government is denying him a visa -- they are not denying him the right to say stuff. Until you can prove otherwise, this is not a free speech issue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Man you're naive... And wrong.

But for some odd reason you can't seem to prove either one.

Anyway, Mike Savage is allowed to say whatever he wants. The British government is denying him a visa -- they are not denying him the right to say stuff.

Well, duh.

Until you can prove otherwise, this is not a free speech issue.

I think he is clearly not being allowed entry due to his outspoken and highly bigoted views. So to me, that most certainly makes it a free speech issue, regardless of your OPINION to the contrary.

 

[Mise]

I've known several people (members of my family) who were denied entry into America and Britain during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, despite them being perfectly law abiding citizens, visiting family. I don't see why members of my family or any other good, honest, hardworking man or woman should have to suffer the indignity of being refused entry into this country, while idiots like Mike Savage are allowed to come and go as they please.

Oh, and, by the way, the Home Office was perfectly clear about why Mike Savage was denied entry:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/name-and-shame-list

Michael Alan Weiner (also known as Michael Savage)
Controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

He was not denied entry because his views were outspoken. He was denied entry because he sought to provoke others to serious criminal acts and inter-community violence.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I've known several people (members of my family) who were denied entry into America and Britain during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, despite them being perfectly law abiding citizens, visiting family. I don't see why members of my family or any other good, honest, hardworking man or woman should have to suffer the indignity of being refused entry into this country, while idiots like Mike Savage are allowed to come and go as they please.

Since I have absolutely no specifics regarding your family and where they are from, and you are apparently not willing to provide them, all I can say is "Oh well". Too bad they weren't white Europeans which the respective governments didn't think were trying to illegally emigrate.

He was not denied entry because his views were outspoken. He was denied entry because he sought to provoke others to serious criminal acts and inter-community violence.

From what I can discern, the only time Savage ever visited Britain was to do just that. I bet he didn't seek to provoke anything but his own interest in where his ancestors likely came from.

Got any evidence whatsoever that he expressed his views publicly even once while he was there, or that he even proposed to do so? Unless there is an underground redneck element in Britain, I seriously doubt anybody would even want to listen to his views.

 

[Mise]

Evidence of Mike Savage provoking others to serious criminal acts and inter-community violence were posted in this thread already. As for what you can say about my familial anecdote, you can start by accepting that all liberal democracies enforce some kind of controls on who can enter the country, and that it often requires more than a desire to visit Buckingham Palace to be admitted entry into this country.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Um, nope. Not as far as I'm concerned. And there is certainly no proof he did so in Britain, or even suggested he wanted to do so.

And my experience with foreigners gaining entry to the US prior to 9/11 was almost solely a matter of trying to stop illegal immigration. It was simply not difficult at all for most relatively affluent people to visit the US. Most European visitors didn't even require a visa. Just hop on a plane and tell the smiling customs agent whether you were here for business or pleasure.

 

[GinandTonic]

Um, nope. And certainly not in Britain.

Yes it has. Aping Pat and just refusing to exist the copious evidence posted is futile.

Certainly it has been proved to the satisfaction of the UK authorities, which is rather the point. Bottom line is that a forign citizen asking for a privilidge doesnt get the same ballance of doubt as a UK citizen exercising their rights.

 

[Flying Pig]

All rights come with trade-offs and implicit (and in some cases explicit)obligations: your right to speak freely comes with the responsibility to think about people around you when you do open your mouth; and so if somebody will not take this then they don't deserve the right to say what they want.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes it has. Aping Pat and just refusing to exist the copious evidence posted is futile.

Aping Pat?

And let's see the 'proof'. Are you going to repost the videos I posted on page 2 of this thread?

Certainly it has been proved to the satisfaction of the UK authorities, which is rather the point.

Well, I would contend the 'point' of this thread is that you don't have a clue what free speech actually means.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

To understand free speech means freedom to speak what others do not like and even cannot stand to hear? ... Tolerating what you like is hardly a major achievement. Hitler tolerated what he liked. So did Stalin. Idi Amin did too. So did Genghis Khan, the Shah, and Henry Kissinger. Free speech only becomes an issue when someone says what others don't want to hear. Michael Albert

 

[bhsup]

Mise is absolutely right that this is not a free speech issue. The honorable Mr. Savage is not a citizen of the UK and therefore has no inherent right to cross into the UK's dominion. It is, if anything, a defense of sovereignty issue. NO nation in the world is obligated to allow entry to any non-citizen and can say yea or nay for whatever reason they want and the foreigner has no rights to argue otherwise.

 

[Flying Pig]

Precisely. His legal case is for defamation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can try to spin it however you want, but I think that Britain wants to deny him any future entry into the country due to his bigoted opinions. The rest is just rationalization for doing so.

Every single one of these threads has this same argument over semantics.

wilders 2.0

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes; but he had no god-given right to come in. They are perfectly entitled to do so, and right to since he has no respect for those around him. Hate-speakers should not have legal protection.

 

[Dachs]

Yes; but he had no god-given right to come in.

So if he claimed that God had granted him the right to enter the United Kingdom, he would have been allowed entry? Wow, you guys are lax.

 

[GinandTonic]

You can try to spin it however you want, but I think that Britain wants to deny him any future entry into the country due to his bigoted opinions. The rest is just rationalization for doing so.

Why can you not grasp the difference between a right and a privilidge?

He has the right to free speech. He does not have the right to enter the UK. That would be a privilidge. Had he made his speechs in the UK he would be skirting the edge of incitement-law. Watch-list not prosicution standard. Why should he be granted the privilidge of being allowed in, when he will require extensive resorces of MI5, GCHO etc be spent on him?

He is not being denied a right, he is having a privilidge withdrawn.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why can you not grasp the difference between a right and a privilidge?.

Because in this country free speech is a right instead of a privilege?

He has the right to free speech.

Not in Britain.

He does not have the right to enter the UK. That would be a privilidge.

Was he forbidden entry before his bigoted and racist views became known to the British authorities? No.

Was he forbidden entry prior to this crackdown on public fanatics became all the rage? No.

Why is he now forbidden entry? Because they don't want him speaking freely in Britain just like Wilders.

Had he made his speechs in the UK he would be skirting the edge of incitement-law.

That's just it. Not only has he apparently never done so, he didn't even plan to do so. At least with Wilders, they knew that was the reason for his trip.

Why should he be granted the privilidge of being allowed in, when he will require extensive resorces of MI5, GCHO etc be spent on him?

Why should they even care about another loud-mouthed arrogant American walking about in a Hawiian shirt and shorts?

He is not being denied a right, he is having a privilidge withdrawn.

And you are a subject of the Queen.

 

[GinandTonic]

Because in this country free speech is a right instead of a privilege?

The US is notable for it's exercising of it's visa controls on political lines. As a nation you have no access to the moral high ground.

Not in Britain.

Incorrect. He is being denied access not free speech.

Was he forbidden entry before his bigoted and racist views became known to the British authorities? No.

Was he forbidden entry prior to this crackdown on public fanatics became all the rage? No.

Why is he now forbidden entry? Because they don't want him speaking freely in Britain just like Wilders.

Incorrect. He is being denied access for his inciting biggotry and potentially violence.

That's just it. Not only has he apparently never done so, he didn't even plan to do so. At least with Wilders, they knew that was the reason for his trip.

He has done, as Mirc and Hanibal have quoted. He didnt plan to in the UK because he never even tried to come here. This was the publishing of the list remember? Have you been paying the slightest attention to any of the thread? Even the OP? Or have you just got right on with the hackery?

Why should they even care about another loud-mouthed arrogant American walking about in a Hawiian shirt and shorts?

Because they believe he is liable to incite hate and violence. Thats an aberdly weak answer anyway.

And you are a subject of the Queen.

Meh, at least my country doesnt pass laws about how to cross the road, most kids learn that about four or five